Thank you, great article.
"More Iranians were killed during Khomeini’s first month in power than in the Shah’s 37-year reign. Yet Carter, Ted Kennedy, and the Western media, who had brayed so long about the Shah’s alleged “human rights” violations, said nothing. Mass executions and torture elicited no protests. Seeing his country thus destroyed, the exiled Shah raged to an adviser: “Where are the defenders of human rights and democracy now?”
"More Iranians were killed during Khomeini’s first month in power than in the Shah’s 37-year reign. Yet Carter, Ted Kennedy, and the Western media, who had brayed so long about the Shah’s alleged “human rights” violations, said nothing. Mass executions and torture elicited no protests. Seeing his country thus destroyed, the exiled Shah raged to an adviser: “Where are the defenders of human rights and democracy now?”
Those of you who really respect Shah, should stop comparing him and his regime with IRI. Looking good against IRI is not a compliment but being compared to it is a disrespect.
The author of this article is obviously biased beyond reason. There is no question Shah did a lot of good for Iran but that doesn't change the fact that he was a brutal dictator. As brutal as IRI? Heck no, but why would that matter at a time when IRI didn't exist yet? He was a dictator and therefore people were right to want him removed. Many dictators have done positive things for their country but people always have a right to aspire for political freedom.
If we had our collective political experience that we have now, maybe we should have opted for reforming his regime. But in all honesty he was given a second chance twice in 32 and 42 to reform his regime and each time he chose to tighten his grip. What would have justified trusting him in 57? I truly believe Shah is responsible for existence of IRI more than anyone else. The mistake that is IRI should not be traced back to wanting Shah out but to a lot of other things.
The author of this article is obviously biased beyond reason. There is no question Shah did a lot of good for Iran but that doesn't change the fact that he was a brutal dictator. As brutal as IRI? Heck no, but why would that matter at a time when IRI didn't exist yet? He was a dictator and therefore people were right to want him removed. Many dictators have done positive things for their country but people always have a right to aspire for political freedom.
If we had our collective political experience that we have now, maybe we should have opted for reforming his regime. But in all honesty he was given a second chance twice in 32 and 42 to reform his regime and each time he chose to tighten his grip. What would have justified trusting him in 57? I truly believe Shah is responsible for existence of IRI more than anyone else. The mistake that is IRI should not be traced back to wanting Shah out but to a lot of other things.
خیر جناب
شاه مسئول بوجود امدن رژیم کنونی نبود
افرادی که دور و بر شاه بودند و می خواستند فرهنگ جوامع غربی را در عرض چند سال بوسیله قلم ها دوربین های و افکار خود به جامعه ای ایرانی منتقل کنند اینها بودند که باعث شدند مردم قیام کنند
همین افراد هنوز هم با همان افکار وجود دارند
و همین افراد هستند که جمهوری اسلامی را سی سال سر پا نگه داشته اند
اگر انطور که شما می گویید تقصیر شاه بود که رژیم اخوندی بوجود امد
پس چرا بیش از سی سال حکومت کرده است
ایا هنوز هم تقصیر شاه است که حکومت می کند ؟
خیر جانم شاهنشاه اریامهر ادم روشنفکری بود و می دانست که مردم ایران را نمی تواند در عرض چند سال عوض کرد
ولی احمق هایی بودند که در دربار و نزدیک به اعلیحضرت فکر می کردند که روشنفکر هستند
همین عده بودند که شاه و پادشاهی را از مردم جدا کردند
همین ها بودند که باعث شدند مردم از پادشاه نفرت پیدا کنند
زیرا نه جامعه ایرانی را می شناختند نه فرهنگ و اداب مردم را تنها اشنایی انها با مجتمعی بود که از طبقه مرفه تشکیل شده بودند
فکر می کردند سی ملیون ایرانی مانند انها فکر میکنند
شاه هم در اواخر تحت تاثیر اینها قرار گرفته بود یا بهتر بگویم نمی توانست کاری بکند
زیرا اکثریت درباریان همفکر بودند
بله جانم
شاه مسئول بوجود امدن رژیم کنونی نبود
افرادی که دور و بر شاه بودند و می خواستند فرهنگ جوامع غربی را در عرض چند سال بوسیله قلم ها دوربین های و افکار خود به جامعه ای ایرانی منتقل کنند اینها بودند که باعث شدند مردم قیام کنند
همین افراد هنوز هم با همان افکار وجود دارند
و همین افراد هستند که جمهوری اسلامی را سی سال سر پا نگه داشته اند
اگر انطور که شما می گویید تقصیر شاه بود که رژیم اخوندی بوجود امد
پس چرا بیش از سی سال حکومت کرده است
ایا هنوز هم تقصیر شاه است که حکومت می کند ؟
خیر جانم شاهنشاه اریامهر ادم روشنفکری بود و می دانست که مردم ایران را نمی تواند در عرض چند سال عوض کرد
ولی احمق هایی بودند که در دربار و نزدیک به اعلیحضرت فکر می کردند که روشنفکر هستند
همین عده بودند که شاه و پادشاهی را از مردم جدا کردند
همین ها بودند که باعث شدند مردم از پادشاه نفرت پیدا کنند
زیرا نه جامعه ایرانی را می شناختند نه فرهنگ و اداب مردم را تنها اشنایی انها با مجتمعی بود که از طبقه مرفه تشکیل شده بودند
فکر می کردند سی ملیون ایرانی مانند انها فکر میکنند
شاه هم در اواخر تحت تاثیر اینها قرار گرفته بود یا بهتر بگویم نمی توانست کاری بکند
زیرا اکثریت درباریان همفکر بودند
بله جانم
He was bad enough that people were sick of him and revolted so the bad did outweigh the good. If he was as good as you want to paint him to be then people would of had no reason to start a revolution. Plus, if Shah was smart he would of taken measures to minimize the possibility of a revolution. The IRI is really bad but comparing the Shah to the IRI is like comparing two evils and saying who was less evil. Some people need to stop living in the past and talk as if Iran was a good country before the revolution.
..............................................................1342, White Revolution:.........................................................
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution
The White Revolution received most of its criticism from two main groups: the clergy, and the landlords. The landlords were angry about the land reforms because their land was taken and redistributed. They also did not appreciate the government undercutting their authority when it came to dealing with peasants or land laborers.
The powerful Shī‘ah were also angered at the reforms that removed much of their traditional powers in the realms of education and family law, as well as lessening their previously strong influence in the rural areas. A "large percentage of the upper echelon of the clergy came from landowning families" deeply affected by the reform and much absentee rent income went directly to the clergy and their institutions. The rents from an estimated 10,000 villages whose rents helped finance the clerical establishment were eligible for redistribution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution
The White Revolution received most of its criticism from two main groups: the clergy, and the landlords. The landlords were angry about the land reforms because their land was taken and redistributed. They also did not appreciate the government undercutting their authority when it came to dealing with peasants or land laborers.
The powerful Shī‘ah were also angered at the reforms that removed much of their traditional powers in the realms of education and family law, as well as lessening their previously strong influence in the rural areas. A "large percentage of the upper echelon of the clergy came from landowning families" deeply affected by the reform and much absentee rent income went directly to the clergy and their institutions. The rents from an estimated 10,000 villages whose rents helped finance the clerical establishment were eligible for redistribution.
Last edited:
Shah was not personally brutal. It is just that his system of governance allowed brutality by its elements, mostly in its secret service. However brutality was not institutionalized in Shah's regime as a whole.
On the other hand in IRI, brutality is not only institutionalized within the whole apparatus, but it has become its doctrine and ideology. Hardline ideologists of the regime have long been advocating the policy of fear and brutality on the ground that people's mind is easily distracted from the path of god and therefore must be kept in line through force and fear. Amr-e beh Ma'roof and Nahy-az monkar have become the cornerstone of their mindset. They have turned into dangerous animals.
On the other hand in IRI, brutality is not only institutionalized within the whole apparatus, but it has become its doctrine and ideology. Hardline ideologists of the regime have long been advocating the policy of fear and brutality on the ground that people's mind is easily distracted from the path of god and therefore must be kept in line through force and fear. Amr-e beh Ma'roof and Nahy-az monkar have become the cornerstone of their mindset. They have turned into dangerous animals.
Shah never orderd torture or anything like that to be done. Infact he heard about the suposed torture of terrorist islamist and commies from the outside media.TO SAY HE WAS HE WAS personaly brutal is false.Anyone who has met him has said he was a shy and timid individual. The mass hysteria that he was this blood thirsty dicactor which has peope blieving it nuts.
It's almost like it's cool to bash the shah and if you dont do it you're not cool. It's sad
'
It's almost like it's cool to bash the shah and if you dont do it you're not cool. It's sad
'
Last edited:
There could be little doubt that the Shah had faults, that he was a dictator, gave ample freedom to Islamic clergy and was pretty religious, but by the virtue of hindsight, there could also be little doubt that in comparison with the republic of mullahs, he was many times better for the country as a whole and a cause for its progress and prosperity. If only he was quicker to embrace change, or appointed Bakhtiar sooner allowing elections for PM while adopting a symbolic role, things would have worked out much better....if only!
He must of been a really weak leader if he didn't know savak ( something he created ) was torturing his own people. Don't tell me he didn't know 90 people were murdered by his thugs in Just one day in the early days of the revolution whih was a move that eventually lead to his downfall. If you claim he didn't know about the tortures then why did he create savak?